CONFIDENTIAL
the border had been put on to a formal basis following a policy decision taken by the Hong Kong Government in March 1968. In accordance with that decision, the Hong Kong Covernment agreed to accept responsibility for the maintenance of all buildings required for operational reasons in the border arca, whether they were occupied by the Arry or the police. Work to be done was discussed and agreed between the Government and the Army; the latter provided (at no cost) such technical advice as was necessary and sometines supervision and labour; and the Hong Kong Government not the cost of all stores required. Under these arrangements, that Government agreed to meet the costs of works services required for operation "Spring Clean". In February 1971, the 100 were told by the Hong Kong Government that "he latest policy statement on maintenance of border works refers to the Military being "responsible for all defence works and for all accommodation and tracks they have built and not formally handed over to the FD for maintenance"."
-
11. In the view of the Ministry of Defence, the attitude of the Hong Kong Government is illogical, since there was no material difference between "Highland Bonnet" and "Spring Clean". Since that Government agreed to meet the cost of the latter, then in the view of the Ministry there is no reason why it should not likewise meet the costs of the former operation. It appears to the Ministry of Defence that the Hong Kong Covernment is basing its case simply on the fact that it was not consulted before the works required for "Highland Bonnet" were put in hand.
12.
The Hong Kong Government's case is as follows:-
(2)
(3)
The border positions occupied by the Army under "Highland Bonnet" were old military positions which had originally been prepared by the Army several years earlier to meet external armed aggression: they had been sited as a military commitment long before the nature of the 1967 disturbances became apparent. Such works had previously always been a charge to Her Majesty's Government: they had been refurbished in 1967 by the military authoritics on their own initiative and without reference to the Hong Kong Government which sees no reason why it should meet the costs involved.
The experience of 1967 made it clear that there was a more permanent need for a joint police/military presence on the frontier than the purely military situation might dictate. It was no longer practicable to attempt to distinguish between a threat to internal security and a threat of armed aggression across the border. Accordingly, in March 1968, the Hong Kong Government took the policy decision referred to in paragraph 10 above.
It was in accordance with that decision that exercise "Spring Clean" was undertaken, at the request and on the initiative of the Hong Kong Government, which agreed to meet the costs involved.
COKAIDI
/(4)